Major UFO experiences are specific to the observer

[Eburacum]

Well, you are all certainly free to interpret the event any way you'd like. I can just give the best accounting I can.

Indeed, but I hope that I have successfully demonstrated to you that at least one part of your account is in error, since the Moon is considerably smaller than a dime held at arms' length, and you also say the 'orbs' were each smaller than the Moon. That makes them considerably smaller than a dime. But this is a common error, repeated in many places on the 'net.

I may have mentioned that I have at least five fairly convincing UFO/UAP sightings in my long life, and I've managed to explain all of them in my own mind; a different observer may have come to different conclusions about any of them. Especially the alien that entered my room, which I am fairly sure was sleep paralysis. I also note that any or all of my 'explanations' for these events could be wrong, but that is true about almost anything.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Indeed, but I hope that I have successfully demonstrated to you that at least one part of your account is in error, since the Moon is considerably smaller than a dime held at arms' length, and you also say the 'orbs' were each smaller than the Moon. That makes them considerably smaller than a dime. But this is a common error, repeated in many places on the 'net.

I may have mentioned that I have at least five fairly convincing UFO/UAP sightings in my long life, and I've managed to explain all of them in my own mind; a different observer may have come to different conclusions about any of them. Especially the alien that entered my room, which I am fairly sure was sleep paralysis. I also note that any or all of my 'explanations' for these events could be wrong, but that is true about almost anything.

Your experiences have no bearing. Moon is a silly trick I could have looked up. I told you to look at illustrations. You all have indeed taught me a lot.
On a different note, I've enjoyed interacting with you, Eburacum, all these years. Take care and I hope you get to see a real UFO one day.

 

[John J.]

[replying to @Eburacum ] Take care and I hope you get to see a real UFO one day.

I think this arguably brings us back to the thread title, "Major UFO experiences are specific to the observer".

What do you (Todd) mean by a "real UFO"?
If in this context a real UFO is an exotic artefact of non-human origin or a visible phenomenon under non-human control, no "real" UFOs have been shown to exist, ever, although clearly some people are convinced that they have seen real UFOs.

This might be the downside of something being "undebunkable" (which I sort of equate with unfalsifiable), it is also indemonstrable. No testable evidence means that we are left with subjective accounts which cannot be tested.
This doesn't mean that the witnessed event wasn't accurately reported, or even that the witness was mistaken in their conclusions, just that we have no way of assessing this except by considering what is already known about similar reports.
None have been shown to be proof of ETI craft or other exotic phenomena.

So how do we decide which reports might be of "real" UFOs (using the above definition)? I guess many Metabunk threads address this.
Anecdotal reports and beliefs/ confidence of claimants are objectively (not necessarily subjectively) insufficient, they are not a sensible basis for changing how we view the universe or what should be printed in science textbooks. Many mainstream books about astronomy, spaceflight etc. discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial life, but I feel it would be a retrograde step if authors felt obliged to mention (e.g.) Antonio Villas Boas' account, or Kelly-Hopkinsville, as possible evidence of alien life along with, say, discussion of spectroscopy of planetary atmospheres, SETI and the Drake equation.

It seems the assessment of a UFO being "real" is a subjective matter of opinion -belief- and isn't dependent on testable or replicable evidence.
It is beyond doubt that many people believe that they have seen exotic flying craft/ phenomena and that they're certain their experiences can't be explained by any theories that don't involve non-human intelligence. I am sure Barney and Betty Hill believed their UFO was real.

Many equally credible people have witnessed ghosts, Bigfoot, chupacabras and been visited by figures from their religious traditions. In the past, many others attested to fairies, witches. Belief in the latter appears to have been widespread. But magic isn't real, so witches (in the historical sense) didn't exist (whether some people believed themselves to be witches is a different issue). Yet people were put to death because accounts of supernatural phenomena, and anecdotes connecting almost certainly unconnected events, were accepted as evidence and believed. Conviction that something is real is not evidence that it is, even if others share that conviction.

Major UFO experiences might be specific to the observer. How that observer interprets their sighting, and what they believe as a result, might also be subjective.
There is no testable, convincing evidence that anyone has ever seen a "real" UFO, though some people believe they have.

Stating that real UFOs exist to be seen, and implying those who don't see (or see but don't believe in) them are cursed, seems more faith- than evidence-based.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

I think I understand how believers can view skeptics as being biased and narrow-minded. The sticking points are the scope of hypotheses, what possibilities could be plausible, and how testimonies should be considered.

Believers want to connect as much testimonies together as possible, whether they are from different times and locations, even years apart. Every testimony (no matter how dubious or flimsy) is a dot that could be joined to another dot. To do otherwise, is to discard potential evidence in their view. Skeptics consider that as speculation that is more like constructing a "sci-fi narrative" of choice, rather than an investigation.

Skeptics prioritise known phenomena based on plausibility. Believers view this approach as exclusionary, and closing the door to "otherworldly" possibilities.

Believers recognize that elimination of more plausible "worldly" phenomena first (which is what skepticism requires) is nigh on impossible, when there is little evidence to study. They view this as a logical trap laid by skeptics, who are not acting in good faith.

Skeptics argue that unknown simply means unknown, which cannot prove anything at all (let alone that something is otherworldly).

Believers argue that just because something could have a "worldly" explanation, doesn't automatically exclude it from an "otherworldly" explanation.

Skeptics focus on what is the most plausible and provable. Believers just want to believe, which doesn't require a fully formed scientific theory or detailed evidence behind it. This does not exclude skeptics from having their own speculative theories and beliefs.

The two groups are speaking two different languages, which is not a problem as long as both sides understand each other. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

 

[Todd Feinman]

You don't practice good science here. Even AARO and Sean Kirkpatrick were looking through NUFORC reports looking for corroborative evidence. I've watched the pareidoliac fits around the Calvine photo and it reminds me of the nonsense around the McMinnville UFO, or the Heflin UFO. You can't find an exact match, strings, etc. but you will keep on looking. You are sure based on swinging Occam's Razor around that anything beyond the paradigm just couldn't be. I think some of you even thought that posed photo from Life magazine by the wires was from the Trents.. You ignore all eyewitness testimony as unreliable, even where corroborated. You don't pay attention; Ann didn't even know my first sighting was connected to McMinnville. I've heard a lot of unscientific stuff come out of skeptics over the many years I've been interacting with you.
Eburacum once stated that no real UFO pictures will ever be taken because they don't exist! That's not science, it's a step beyond confirmation bias. You all seem to conflate "believers" and "witnesses" who aren't necessarily claiming things are aliens, just anomalous. You judge the entire phenomenon based on lousy cell phone footage and walk away arrogantly convinced you have debunked the entire phenomenon.
One of the reasons I am most critical of you is the injuries you do to science, daily. With the obvious negative bias, and few constructive solutions. You'd rather ridicule than learn, and that is too bad. I'd never hire you as my attorney, NorCal Dave!
I enjoy watching Anton Petrov on YouTube; seems like scientists get things wrong, a lot.
Here on this forum. I think Fritzkquzerk has the most scientific approach of the lot of you. Really.

I think you folks want things to be in the LIZ. When they come out, they must be hoaxes, or witnesses mistaken.

 

[Ann K]

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

That statement bothers me.

If that belief affects us all, if that belief means that (for a real-life current example) our taxpayer money goes toward UFO studies instead of fighting wildfires, then that "entitlement" of one group of believers over-rides the safety of others. If health department money goes to try to find a connection between autism and vaccination (in spite of enormous studies that have already been done, showing the negative) while measles flares up due to people who have been discouraged from vaccinating their kids, that's because someone's beliefs took precedence over medical science and public safety. If people pay taxes for police service and road maintenance while churches use those same services without paying a penny, that's because they demand financial privileges for their beliefs while those who don't share them have to pay the bill.

 

[Gary C]

Some beliefs have consequences beyond just those to the believer.

 

[Ann K]

You don't practice good science here. Even AARO and Sean Kirkpatrick were looking through NUFORC reports looking for corroborative evidence. ..... Ann didn't even know my first sighting was connected to McMinnville.

Correction: "looking for corroborative evidence" is NOT good science, unless they also acknowledge the misses as well as the hits. Did that ever happen? And I had no idea what you later added in your profile.

You are sure based on swinging Occam's Razor around that anything beyond the paradigm just couldn't be.

We know that mundane explanations exist for the vast majority of identified sightings. As scientists, we need to search for those first, of course. As scientists, that's all we CAN study. And as scientists, we understand the vastness of space and the limitations of space travel a good deal better than most laymen, so the list of possible causes for a sighting is long, and "aliens" is far, far down near the bottom. Below that is a single item we have no way to study, that is variously called "magic", "miracles", or "the supernatural".

You're hinting at that last item. We have no methods that can give us any meaningful information about that, and until we exhaust the other items in the list (including a witness' state of mind, sleepiness, motivation to lie or exaggerate, smudge on his glasses, sobriety, mental health, hallucinations, floaters in the eye, etc) that's not going to happen. Science has no equations for "magic".

 

[Dave51c]

One of the reasons I am most critical of you is the injuries you do to science, daily.

I think science will survive.

Those MB members who bring science into any potential debunk or discussion often have to do so with limited (or lack of any) evidence to hand. That's not to say that any science argument is automatically correct. Often it can only be a best guess - an estimation, ball park conjecture. Something members will work with and expand on or reject outright.

But if we want to talk about injuries to science, can we please acknowledge comments on e.g. believers videos etc. The ones I've seen just invent fantastical 'science' out of thin air to support what is being put forward as 'THE TRUTH'. If such fantastical science were true (factual and repeatable) then great - problem solved.

Skepticism is the harder path to follow. It can crush the inquiring mind, the flights of fantasy and the awe of the unknown and it can become dogma. To my mind it acts as an anchor - 'I see/hear your claims, but I'm skeptical' is not a binary rejection, it's the start. Does it stop me from enjoying my excitement of 'what if this is true'? No it doesn't. Does it require me to accept someone's need for belief or self validation? No.

Can I accept when someone believes in their heart and mind that they had some experience that left them profoundly changed and unable to explain within their world view - yes, absolutely. I can also understand the anger and frustration of a good faith actor when that experience is met with skepticism. For the skeptic, those experiences are often referenced within the complex multidiscipline world involving culture, art, science, psychology and history etc. Things, I believe, can get lost in translation.

I enjoy watching Anton Petrov on YouTube; seems like scientists get things wrong, a lot.

I like Anton as well, but this is how science works - it self corrects as more evidence comes to light or new studies invalidates the old. Scientists are also human, they make errors, have egos, are spiteful and engage in internal politics. Tis life. They also dedicate a large part of their lives serving humanity for the greater good (with caveats of course).

(But this whole simplistic 'science got something wrong therefore science bad' is propaganda being used by the far right to justify a climate of anti-intellectualism)

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'd never hire you as my attorney, NorCal Dave!

That's a good call. I got a degree in Communications and worked as a contractor.

You don't practice good science here.

We're not scientists. It's a public forum, that in the grand scheme of things, is of little consequence. Some here may work as scientists, but this is not some peer reviewed journal at a university. I think people here understand the scientific method and try to apply it the best they can to various claims.

As you pointed out several times in this thread "Your losing the battle" because we just stick to the claims. We don't have YouTube channels (some do), or TickTok and Instagram accounts. There isn't a Metabunk social media presence dropping new content every week. Mick will put out a video here and there. Our threads just start with a title, no fancy thumbnail with a surprise face, or wraparound flashing subtitles with a shit ton of emojis. That's not what people do here. Hell, there aren't even any ads! Show me another forum you can engage on with out flashing ads all over the place. Mick likely runs Metabunk at a net lose.

If someone is doing better UFO science somewhere, show us. SCU? They flat out refused to acknowledge their star witness was looking right at an incoming aircraft and used all their science (several of them are real PhD level scientists) to show the big ass Jet Blue aircraft coming in for a landing and that looked on video exactly like an aircraft coming in for a landing, was in fact an anomalous, probably alien, plasma orb. Because the police officer witness said it was not a plane.

They later recanted, sorta. The updated some power point slides on a GitHub file showing the witness was "mistaken" in where he was looking and in fact had filmed an incoming plane. Probably, but there were still other witnesses to be talked to. A witness being mistaken, imagine that? SCU also decided NOT to publicly discuss this reversal at their big conference, because of "time constraints".

Post #225 and on: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ne...fairfield-county-ct-2022-orb-ufo.13792/page-7

fits around the Calvine photo and it reminds me of the nonsense around the McMinnville UFO

I'm not even sure what you're ranting about here. Noted UFO "expert" Nick Pope, among others, claimed the Calvine photo was one of the best. When a copy came to light and Dr. Clarke devoted many hours of research into it, we all got to see "one of the best" UFO photos. They made the claim. Having done so, it's worth a look, so we did. What would you have us do, just accept it as a real photo of an alien diamond spaceship floating around Scotland? That only 1 or 2 people saw?

Same with the McMinnville photo. Do you really think that's what an alien visitation would look like? A hubcap? Buzzing rural Oregon? Having actually captured an alien flying saucer on film, the witness then....waited a while to get it developed and then lost the negatives. Really?

Even AARO and Sean Kirkpatrick were looking through NUFORC reports looking for corroborative evidence.

I'd like to see a source for that. Even if they did, what are they going to find? What did you find? Your first sighting was 5 lights/orbs things, so you found 1 anonymous NUFORC report, from months later and a couple of hundred miles away that talked about 5 lights. Which is completely different from your 2nd sighting of a single capsule thing.

They're anecdotes. As Jason Colavito nicely put it: Data is not the plural of anecdote.

With the obvious negative bias, and few constructive solutions.

This forum is FULL of constructive solutions. Starlink flares, aircraft, lens flare, and yes hoaxes. All constructive solutions to claimed alien/UFO encounters.

I don't know what your after Todd. You claim your sightings can never be explained. Fair enough. But then you seem to want confirmation that something unexplainable, is real and should be studied.